I have a few questions for the atheists. But before I ask, I will make the following stipulations for the discussion within this thread, to keep the fluff out of this thread:

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).3- If you don't know, simply say "I don't know"! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) "there is no God"; because you said "I don't know". This includes making statements like (for example) "there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God" because; you said "I don't know". If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.4- If you are going to make a "Negative" assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating.5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting.7- If you post links to other people's opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).

SOÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. If, according to the atheist, we go to nothing when we die; from where did we come, to get here?

We have existence right nowÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ We can prove "said existence" inductively, by (but not limited to):1- Interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.2- Interacting with the world both physically and intellectually.

We've had existence in the pastÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ We can prove "said existence" inductively, by (but not limited to):1- Reading the historical documentation left to us from the authors of said antiquities (i.e. recorded data) interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.2- Researching the archeological evidences left to us from the lives of those who lived in antiquity.3- Reconciling the evidences of historical documentation and archeological evidences to test and validate each.

Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the "Laws of Logic", altruistic Love, the "Laws of Mathematics" etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

<edited by Ron 12/20/2011>This post was in need of additionall editing due to the false assertions of digitalartist claiming the words "FACT/FACTUAL" were not contained (required) in the OP. Therefore said words were highlighted in red, emboldened AND underlined, so-as-to relieve that blatant lie from being used in the future to keep the equivocations down, and hopefully, meaningful conversation flowing.

By that question are you referring to origins on a cosmic scale (the big bang) or origins on a human level (abiogenesis)?

I thought he was referring to us as individuals with the first questions, and as a species with the second. Then he went on to ask about the foundations of an atheists world view.

He didn't exactly make himself clear did he? I'm starting to recognise this as a standard tactic. He leaves himself vague and when he doesn't get the answer he wants, BAM, he hits you with the equivocation trump card.

Then why do you totally refute this statement in your third sentence? Further, by making such a statement, you are admitting that atheism has no foundation. So, in essence, you are saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â, and any other comments are equivocation.

But to answer your question it's the same place I think.Ã‚Â

This is neither an answer, nor is it a cogent statement. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an unsupported statement attempting to support another statement (that, itself, refutes one of your later statements) that it-self has no evidentiary support. And, both statements it is attempting to tie together are equivocations as per #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 3, 4 and 5

Before I was born I didn't exist, and after I die I wont exist.Ã‚Â

This is an equivocation as per #4 and #5, in which case you should fall back on the first sentence in #3.

In both cases, I simply wont be.

This is an equivocation as per #4, in which case you should fall back on the first sentence in #3.

Well you already know the scientific answer to that question, that we share a common ancestor with other similar apes.

This is not only an equivocation as per #2 and #5, but per the Forum rules as well (See Macro-evolution)

To put it another way, we all came from a union between our parents, who were a little different from their parents, who were a little different from their parents, and so on and so forth.

This is not an answer because it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t address the question. It has nothing to do with foundations, but more to do with the present. This can also be considered equivocation as per #2.

This is not an answer to the questions asked, it is simply a statement. It provides no evidence for any foundational substance, it is simply fluff.

Atheism doesn't have anything to say on origins.

This is, in essence, a parroting of your first sentence. It has no intrinsic value to the conversation because it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t answer either of the questions I asked, and it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide any evidentiary support for atheistic foundations. In other words, it is fluff (in the context of the questions asked), and it is equivocation as per #2 and #6.

So, to get you back on track, and have a meaningful conversation, I will reiterate:

SOÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. If, according to the atheist, we go to nothing when we die; from where did we come, to get here?

We have existence right nowÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ We can prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“said existenceÃ¢â‚¬Â inductively, by (but not limited to):1- Interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.2- Interacting with the world both physically and intellectually.

WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve had existence in the pastÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ We can prove Ã¢â‚¬Å“said existenceÃ¢â‚¬Â inductively, by (but not limited to):1- Reading the historical documentation left to us from the authors of said antiquities (i.e. recorded data) interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.2- Researching the archeological evidences left to us from the lives of those who lived in antiquity.3- Reconciling the evidences of historical documentation and archeological evidences to test and validate each.

Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Laws of LogicÃ¢â‚¬Â, altruistic Love, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Laws of MathematicsÃ¢â‚¬Â etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

I thought he was referring to us as individuals with the first questions, and as a species with the second. Then he went on to ask about the foundations of an atheists world view.

He didn't exactly make himself clear did he? I'm starting to recognise this as a standard tactic. He leaves himself vague and when he doesn't get the answer he wants, BAM, he hits you with the equivocation trump card.

I made myself crystal clear. And IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m leaving you (and by you I mean the equivocator, not you personallyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Unless you attempt to equivocate) absolutely no wiggle room (as youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll notice from my reply to your first post). Any honest and rationally thinking person can see this.

The problem is, I made it crystal clear whilst at the same time yanking the equivocation curtain away so it couldn't be hid behind. Now the evo-wizards won't come and play

This really isn't a big leap. Plenty of atheists understand what is going on here and even accept it, even if it is through gritted teeth. I guess it isn't as commonly understood on the popular level, putting many atheists into the awkward position of believing they can defend their atheism as an epistemological base. I guess the atheists who can articulate and understand this problem from their own perspective are still too hesitant to carry out the candor and effort to explain it to those that listen to them. I'm think of Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Hitchens and Sam Harris for starters. All of these people will acknowledge the intellectual vacuum that is atheism, when pressed, at least. However, they seem to forget to explain these implications to their followers.

That's my bad martemius, I apologize, I thought you were just being sarcastic.

But this does pose a bigger problem (though not for the theist, regardless of stripe); Are you actually saying that you don't understand my questioning the foundations of atheism? Because the thread is set up in such a way as to go to the heart of atheism, and it does so in a succinct and cogent manner. So now I have to ask why you don't understand it!

If that is the case, then you may be correct; maybe this thread isn't for you.